In accordance with paragraph 9
of Appendix 7 of the Procedure Rules, members of the public may
speak on a particular application after the Chairman has introduced
the report, provided that notice has been given in writing to
Democratic Services by 12 noon one clear working day before the
meeting. A total of 6 minutes is
allocated for each application, with 3 minutes for objectors and 3
minutes for supporters. If more than
one person wishes to speak as an objector or supporter, the time
will be allocated accordingly or those wishing to speak may agree
that one of their number shall speak for all.

Also in accordance with
paragraph 2.32 of the Committee Procedural Rules and Appendix 7 of
the Procedural Rules a total period of 10 minutes is allocated for
members of the public to address the Committee on any matter
relevant to the work of the body in question. Individual members of the public may speak for up
to 5 minutes but the Chairman will decide how the period of time
allocated for public speaking will be apportioned where there are a
number of speakers. Members of the
public are not required to give notice of the intention to speak,
however as a matter of courtesy, a period of 24 hours notice is
encouraged.

Members of the public wishing to ask a
question at the meeting should provide at least three clear working
days’ notice in writing and should include the question with
that notice. This will enable an informed answer to be
given.

Minutes:

The Chairman advised that he
would invite those registered to speak to come forward to speak
when the application was being considered by the
Committee.

The Committee considered the report of the
Independent Expert on the application to register land adjoining
Swift Road, Bamford, Rochdale as a village green.

The Council was the registration authority for
village greens and the responsibility for this function was
delegated to the Public Rights of Way Committee under the
constitution. A delegation of powers to
determine this application on behalf of Rochdale Borough Council
(RBC) had been accepted by the Public Rights of Way Committee at
its meeting on 13 June 2016.

The application was submitted to RBC by Mrs
Janice Arden on 23 June 2015. The
application related to a piece of land adjoining Swift Road,
Bamford. When accepting the application, RBC’s Legal Service
Section has confirmed that there had been no trigger or terminating
events in respect of the land and that the application could be
processes. RBC had undertook a 6 week
period of public consultation when the plan of the application land
was available for inspection, site notices erected and details
published in the Rochdale Observer. The
consultation ran from 22 July to 2 September 2015.

RBC, in its capacity as landowner, objected to
the application. As an objection had
been received to the application it was forwarded to an Independent
Expert – Mr Timothy Jones, for consideration. The Independent Expert was provided with
copies of the application, plan and supporting information in the
forms of witness statements and correspondence as well as
RBC’s objection letter and the response from the
applicant.

The Independent Expert provided his report
– appended to the Report, and having considered the ownership
of the land, planning permission in respect of the land, the
objection submitted by RBC’s Property Services Section and
the statements submitted in support of the application concluded
that no part of the land should be registered as a village green
and recommended that the land not be registered and that there was
no need to hold a public inquiry. The
basis for his conclusion was that RBC had given permission to the
public to use the land and that those residents who had been
informed that the land was for communal or resident’s use had
been correctly informed.

Councillor Patricia Sullivan, ward member for
Bamford, spoke in support of the application saying she was
disappointed with the Independent Expert had recommended that the
application be rejected on the technicality that residents used the
land with permission from the Council when they were not aware that
the Council owned the land. The land
was marked on their deeds as ‘village green. The area did not have parks or play areas for
residents to use.

Mr David Fitton, Chairman of Bamford Village
Green Group, spoke in support of the application saying he was
devastated that the recommendation of the Independent Expert was to
reject the application based on a technicality. The area was designed as village green on the
residents’ deeds and there were no other green spaces on the
estate. The land was well used and
asked ...
view the full minutes text for item 28.

The Committee considered the application to
register land opposite the entrance to St Vincents RC Primary School adjacent to Caldershaw Road, Cut Lane and Shearing Avenue,
Norton, Rochdale as a village green under section 15 of the Commons
Act 2006.

The Council was the registration authority for
village greens and responsibility for this function was delegated
to the Public Rights of Way Committee under the Council’s
constitution. A delegation of powers to
determine this application on behalf of Rochdale Borough Council
(RBC) had been accepted by the Public Rights of Way Committee at
its meeting on 13 June 2016.

The application, dated 9 October 2015, had
been submitted to RBC by The Friends of Heritage Green c/o Mr
Adrian Sutcliffe. When accepting the
application, RBC’s Legal Service Section has confirmed that
there had been no trigger or terminating events in respect of the
land and that the application could be processes. RBC had undertook a 6 week period of public
consultation when the plan of the application land was available
for inspection, site notices erected and details published in the
Rochdale Observer. The consultation ran
from 8 April to 30 May 2017. No
representations were received.

As no objections were received to the
application it was initially viewed as appropriate for the Public
Rights of Way Committee to consider and determine the application
based on a written report as opposed to being forwarded to an
Independent Expert for consideration.

However, following preparation of the report
for the December meeting of the Public Rights of Way Committee, RBC
had submitted a representation stating that the use of the land had
been ‘by right’ rather than ‘as of right’
as RBC owned the land for housing purposes and in accordance with
powers in the housing legislation, the public had a legal right to
use the land.

The report outlined that the first 2
requirements of section 15(2) of the Commons Act 2006 had been
satisfied but a determination was required as to whether third such
element was satisfied via any such use of the land being ‘as
of right’ as opposed to ‘by right’. It was therefore recommended that the matter be
referred to an Independent Expert for determination.

Councillor Michael Holly, ward councillor for
Norden spoke in support of the
application and that he was disappointed that the decision was no
longer for approval with RBC objecting so late in the process.

Mr Mark Hope, Friends of Heritage Green spoke
in support of the application saying that RBC were aware of the
application and had had two opportunities to submit their
objections during the consultation phases and asked the Committee
to consider the original recommendation for approving the
application.

The Committee considered the report before
them and the comments made by the public speakers.

The Committee by majority

RESOLVED: That

1 the
application along with all the background information is sent to an
Independent Expert experienced in determining Town and Village
Green Applications to determine:-

The Committee considered a report which
detailed an application from Mr J Hodgson of Black Hill Gate Farm,
Kettleshulme, requesting the Council to make an Order to divert
part of Public Footpath No.31 in the parish of Kettleshulme.

In accordance with Section 119 (1) of the
Highways Act 1980, it was within the Council’s discretion to
make an Order to divert a public footpath if it appeared to the
Council to be expedient to do so in the interests of the public or
the owner, lessee or occupier of the land crossed by the path.

The land over which the current path ran and
the proposed diversion ran were owned by the Applicant and by Mr A
Hodgson who had given written consent to the proposal.

The alignment of the current footpath was
along the driveway and then in very close proximity to the front of
the cottage at Blackhill Gate Farm. A
permissive route was in place which took the path away from the
immediate frontage of the cottage and had been in use for many
years. Planning permission had been granted by the Peak Park
planning department to extend the existing livestock barn, which
would indirectly affect the current line of the footpath.

The proposed diversion was the route of the
permissive path, which ran to the west of the current route and ran
through pasture field – Points E-C on Plan
HA/118. The new route would have a
width of 2 metres and not be enclosed.
There would be two pedestrian gates at points E and D.

The proposed new route was in the interests of
the landowner for the reasons of privacy and security with regards
to the current footpath’s proximity to the cottage and also
reasons of land and animal management due to the planning
permission to extend the livestock barn and enclose an adjacent
secure area for handling cattle.

The Committee noted that no objections had
been received during the informal consultation. The Committee considered that the proposed route
would not be substantially less convenient than the existing
route. Diverting the footpath would be
of benefit to the applicant as it would offer increased privacy and
security and more efficient land and stock management. It was
considered that the proposed route would be a satisfactory
alternative to the current one and that the legal tests for the
making and confirming of a Diversion Order were satisfied.

The Committee unanimously

RESOLVED: That

1 An Order be
made under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, as amended by the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to divert part of Public
Footpath No.31 by creating a new section of public footpath and
extinguishing the current path, as illustrated on Plan No.HA/118 on
the grounds that it is expedient in the interests of the owner of
the land crossed by the path.

The Committee considered a report which
detailed an application from Victoria Webb-Johnson, Fields Farm,
Sydney Road, Crewe requesting the Council to make an Order to
divert part of Public Footpath No.41 in the parish of
Haslington.

In accordance with Section 119(1) of the
Highways Act 1980, it was within the Council’s discretion to
make an Order to divert a public footpath if it appeared to the
Council to be expedient to do so in the interests of the public or
the owner, lessee or occupier of the land crossed by the path.

The land over which the section of Public
Footpath No.41 Haslington to be diverted and the proposed diversion
ran belonged to the Applicant.

The current alignment went along the driveway
for Fields Farm – points A-B on Plan No. HA/124, before
turning onto an area of grass to a pedestrian gate – points B
to C.

The proposed diversion would run along the
northern boundary of the property – Points D to C, and be 2.5
metres wide with a stone surfaced width of at least 1.2
metres. The Applicant intended to
enclose the path for livestock management and personal security and
use a post and rail fence similar to other fences already on
site. A new pedestrian gate would be
installed at Point D to allow the new diversion to connect with
Public Footpath No.22 Haslington.

The proposals were in the interests of the
Applicant due to reasons of privacy and security. By moving the path to the north of the
Applicant’s boundary, it was moved away from the residential
buildings and improved security for the occupants. It would also provide better security and land
management for grazing livestock.
Moving the footpath from the driveway would remove the risk from
the interaction of walkers and vehicles.

The Committee note that no objections had been
received during the informal consultations and considered that the
proposed route would not be substantially less convenient than the
existing route. Diverting the footpath
off the driveway of Field Farm would ensure privacy and security
for the landowner and their livestock.
It was considered that the proposed route would be a satisfactory
alternative to the current one and that the legal tests for the
making and confirming of a Diversion Order were satisfied.

The Committee unanimously

RESOLVED: That

1 An Order be
made under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, as amended by the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to divert part of Public
Footpath No.41 in the parish of Haslington by creating a new
section of public footpath and extinguishing the current path, as
illustrated on Plan No.HA/124 on the grounds that it is expedient
in the interests of the landowners.

2 Public Notice
of the making of the Order be given and in the event of there being
no objections within the period specified, the Order be confirmed
in the exercise of the powers conferred on the Council by the said
Acts.

The Committee considered a report which
detailed an application from Mrs Cox of Springbank Farm,
Springbank Lane, Adlington requesting
the Council to make an Order to divert part of Public Footpath No.5
in the parish of Adlington.

In accordance with Section 119(1) of the
Highways Act 1980, it was within the Council’s discretion to
make an Order to divert a public footpath if it appeared to the
Council to be expedient to do so in the interests of the public or
the owner, lessee or occupier of the land crossed by the path.

The majority of land over which the section of
the current path to be diverted and the proposed diversion ran
belonged to the Applicant. The section
of path that ran through the property known as The Hole belonged to
Mr & Mrs Taylor, who had provided written consent.

The section of Public Footpath No.5 Adlington
to be diverted ran through the garden of The Hole, passing very
close to residential buildings. After
exiting the garden it ran along a private track which acted as a
driveway for The Hole and visitors to Springbank Farm and its
stables. The track was surfaced and
used by vehicles and for the movement of horses.

The proposed diversion run just outside the
boundary of The Hole and run in a south easterly direction through
fields before going along an existing track to join Springbank
Lane. The new junction on Springbank
Lane was approximately 80 metres from the original
junction. This road was currently well
used by walkers as a link between Macclesfield Canal and the
Middlewood Way. The section of road was
relatively straight with good sightlines and had areas of verge
which allowed people to step off the road if necessary. The proposed diversion would have a width of 2
metres within which a stone track would be laid along its whole
length.

The proposals were in the interests of the
Applicant due to reasons of privacy and security. It would enable the residents of Springbank Farm
and The Hole to install a full security gate as there was a history
of burglaries at The Hole. It was also
enable higher levels of equine control for the stables at
Springbank Farm as the current gate has a history of being left
open, putting the horses and members of the public at risk.

The Committee considered the concerns received
form the Parish Council, the Peak and Northern Footpaths Society
and East Cheshire Ramblers during the informal consultation and the
responses provided, as set out in the report.

The Committee considered that the proposed
route would not be substantially less convenient that the existing
route. Diverting the footpath would be
of benefit to the Applicant as moving the footpath away from
Springbank Farm and The Hole would improve their privacy and
security. It was considered that the
proposed route would be a satisfactory alternative to the current
one and that the legal tests for the making and confirming of a
Diversion Order were ...
view the full minutes text for item 32.

The Committee considered a report which
detailed an application from Jones Homes (North West) Limited,
Emerson House, Heyes Lane, Alderley Edge requesting the Council to make an Order to divert
part of Public Footpath No.45 and part of Public Footpath No.44 in
the parish of Bollington.

In accordance with Section 119 (1) of the
Highways Act 1980, it was within the Council’s discretion to
make an Order to divert a public footpath if it appeared to the
Council to be expedient to do so in the interests of the public or
the owner, lessee or occupier of the land crossed by the
path.

The land over which the sections of Public
Footpaths No.44 and 45 Bollington to be diverted and the proposed
diversion ran belonged to Jones Homes.

The section of Public Footpath No.45
Bollington to be diverted ran along a private driveway, passed
through an open set of gates and over a landscaped garden to the
north of the gates to join a temporary surfaced path over the
garden that led to a pedestrian gate in the fence line.

The section of Public Footpath No.44 to be
diverted (Points D to B on Plan HA/122) ran for 12 metres before it
joined Public Footpath No.45 Bollington.

The proposed diversion would follow a
permissive route that was already constructed and well used by the
general public. The proposed diversion
had a Breedon gold gravel topped surface laid on MOT stone with
timber edgings and was approximately 2 metres wide
throughout. The diverted route was
similar in length to the current route.

The Committee noted that no objections had
been received during the informal consultation and considered that
the proposed route would not be substantially less convenient that
the existing route. Diverting the
footpath would move the footpath out of the new development of Cold
Arbour Farm ensuring future resident’s privacy and security
was increased. It was considered that
the proposed routes would be a satisfactory alternative to the
current ones and that the legal tests for the making and confirming
of a diversion order were satisfied.

The Committee unanimously

RESOLVED: That

1 An Order be
made under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, as amended by the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to divert part of Public
Footpath No.45 and part of Public Footpath No.44 in the parish of
Bollington by creating a new section of public footpath and
extinguishing the current paths, as illustrated on Plan No. HA/122,
on the grounds that it is expedient in the interests of the
landowners.

2 Public Notice
of the making of the Order be given and in the event of there being
no objections within the period specified, the Order be confirmed
in the exercise of the powers conferred on the Council by the said
Acts.

3 In the event
of objections to the Order being received, Cheshire East Borough
Council be responsible for the conduct of any hearing or public
inquiry.

The Committee considered a report which
detailed an application from Mr J Kennerley and Son of
Shellmorehill Farm, Lower Withington requesting the Council to make
an Order to divert part of Public Footpath No.12 in the parish of
Lower Withington.

In accordance with Section 119(1) of the
Highways Act 1980, it was within the Council’s discretion to
make an Order to divert a public footpath if it appeared to the
Council to be expedient to do so in the interests of the public or
the owner, lessee or occupier of the land crossed by the path.

The land over which the section of footpath to
be diverted and the proposed diversion ran belonged to the
Applicants. The section of Public
Footpath No.12 to be diverted ran along a stone surfaced track to
Shellmorehill Farm. The footpath then
continued past two dwellings and crossed a holding area leading to
a milk parlour, before passing through collecting and silage yards
to exit through a slurry tank which obstructed the line of the
path. The footpath continued across a
field and a farm track until it joined Public Footpath No.19 Lower
Withington.

Within the farm yard area there were three
large gates for controlling the movement of cattle between the
yards for milking and these needed to be opened and closed by users
in order to walk the path. A permissive
path was in place to pass the slurry tank which obstructed the
footpath.

The proposed route would commence near the
start of the track to Shellmorehill Farm at Point A on Plan HA/120
and run along field boundaries until it joined Public Footpath
No.18 Lower Withington at Point J on Plan HA/120. The route would be 2.5 metres wide and have a
grass surface. Kissing gates and a
footbridge would be installed on the route.

The Committee noted that no objections had
been received during the informal consultation and noted the
comments from the Applicant, Mr Morrow, Mr & Mrs Mitchell and
the East Cheshire Ramblers.

The Committee considered that the proposed
route would not be substantially less convenient that the existing
route. Diverting the footpath would
allow the Applicant to improve the privacy and security of their
farm and home and improve the safety for users. It was considered that the proposed route would be
a satisfactory alternative to the current one and that the legal
tests for the making and confirming of a Diversion Order were
satisfied.

The Committee unanimously

RESOLVED: That

1 An Order be
made under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, as amended by the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to divert part of Public
Footpath No.12 Lower Withington by creating a new section of public
footpath and extinguishing the current path, as illustrated on Plan
No.HA/120, on the grounds that it is expedient in the interests of
the owners of the land crossed by the path.

The Committee considered a report which
detailed an application from Mr M Gibson, Glebe Farm, Holmes Chapel
requesting the Council to make an Order to divert part of Public
Footpath No.3 in the parish of Cranage.

In accordance with Section 119(1) of the
Highways Act 1980, it was within the Council’s discretion to
make an Order to divert a public footpath if it appeared to the
Council to be expedient to do so in the interests of the public or
the owner, lessee or occupier of the land crossed by the path.

The land over which the section of path to be
diverted and the proposed diversion ran belonged to the Applicant.
The section of Public Footpath No.3 to be diverted ran along the
applicant’s driveway and yard access and passed within close
proximity to both business and domestic premises. Beyond this the path narrowed from approximately 8
metres wide with an even gradient to approximately between 1 metre
and 1.5 metres wide with an uneven gradient. The narrow width and uneven gradient made this
section of path difficult to walk which was further compounded by
the often wet and muddy conditions caused by the frequent flooding
of two natural underground springs that flowed directly under the
footpath.

The proposed route would commence
approximately 61 metres northwest of the current path on Knutsford
Road – Point C on Plan HA/119, and would follow the natural
line of the field boundary to re-join the unaffected part of
Footpath No.3 at its junction with Public Footpath No.15 –
Point B on Plan HA/119. The new route
would have minimum width of 2.5 metres, be enclosed between post
and wire fencing and have a grass surface. There was a requirement for a kissing gate at the
start of the proposed path on Knutsford Road.

The Committee noted that no objections had
been received during the informal consultation and noted the
comments from the Applicant, Cranage Parish Council, Holmes Chapel
Parish Council and the Ramblers Association.

The Committee considered that the proposed
route would not be substantially less convenient that the existing
route. Diverting the footpath would
allow the landowner to protect the privacy and security of their
home and business premises. It was
considered that the proposed route would be a satisfactory
alternative to the current one and that the legal tests for the
making and confirming of a Diversion Order were satisfied.

The Committee unanimously

RESOLVED: That

1 An Order be
made under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, as amended by the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to divert part of Public
Footpath No.3 in the parish of Cranage by creating a new section of
public footpath and extinguishing the current path, as illustrated
on Plan No. HA/119, on the grounds that it is expedient in the
interests of the owners of the land crossed by the path.

The Committee considered a report which
detailed an application from Mrs Uttley of Ivy House Farm,
Mobberley requesting the Council to make an Order to divert part of
Public Footpath No.46 in the parish of Mobberley.

In accordance with Section 119 (1) of the
Highways Act 1980, it was within the Council’s discretion to
make an Order to divert a public footpath if it appeared to the
Council to be expedient to do so in the interests of the public or
the owner, lessee or occupier of the land crossed by the path.

The land over which the section of path to be
diverted and the proposed diversion would run belonged to the
Applicant. It was proposed to divert
the existing route of the footpath away from the Applicant’s
driveway from a new commencing point on Moss Lane - Point D on Plan
No. HA/121, to pass through an old orchard approximately 50 metres
to the southwest of its current position. The path would run along the field boundary before
turning to cross the field to meet with the stile at Point B on
Plan No.HA/121.

The new route would have a minimum width of
2.5 metres and the first 25 metres of the proposed path would be
partially surfaces with stone and the remainder of the path would
run across free draining dry land comprising of stone, earth and
grass surface. A kissing gate would be
installed at the commencement point on Moss Lane.

The Committee noted that no objections had
been received during the informal consultation and noted the
comments from East Cheshire Ramblers on the footpath surface.

The Committee considered the proposed route
would not be substantially less convenient than the existing
route. Diverting the path would
preserve the landowner’s privacy and security. It was considered that the proposed route would be
a satisfactory alternative to the current one and that the legal
tests for the making and confirming of a Diversion Order were
satisfied.

The Committee unanimously

RESOLVED: That

1 An Order be
made under Section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, as amended by the
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to divert part of Public
Footpath No. 46 in the parish of Mobberley by creating a new
section of public footpath and extinguishing the current path, as
illustrated on Plan No. HA/121 on the grounds that it is expedient
in the interest of the owner of the land crossed by the path.

2 Public Notice
of the making of the Order be given and in the event of there being
no objections within the period specified, the Order be confirmed
in the exercise of the powers conferred on the Council by the said
Acts.

3 In the event
of objections to the Order being received, Cheshire East Borough
Council be responsible for the conduct of any hearing or public
inquiry.

The Committee considered a report which
detailed an application from Mr Rick Bright of Bright &
Associates on behalf of the Archibald Bathgate Group Ltd requesting
the Council to make an Order under Section 257 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 to divert Public Footpath No.7 and parts
of Public Bridleways No.10 and No.11 in the parish of Arclid.

In accordance with Section 257 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 the Borough Council, as Planning
Authority, can make an Order diverting a public footpath if it was
satisfied that it was necessary to do so to enable development to
be carried out in accordance with a planning permission which had
been applied for or granted.

It was reported that in the paragraph
preceding paragraph 6.9 of the report, it should read Public
Footpath No.9 Arclid and not Public
Footpath No.7.

Planning permission had been granted for the
extension of the southern eastern extension of South Arclid Quarry to enable further silica sand
excavations and workings – planning reference 09/2291W.

The sand extractions in the south eastern
extension of the South Arclid Quarry
would destroy the land over which the current alignment of Public
Footpath No.7 Arclid ran and also a
section of bridleway consisting of parts of Public Bridleways No.10
and No.11. It was therefore necessary
to divert the public footpath and the bridleway sections to ensure
that the public rights of way were preserved.

The Committee were informed of the
confirmation to the Open Spaces Society, Congleton Ramblers and the
Peak and Northern Footpath Society that the section of Hood Lane
linking the proposed footpath diversion to the proposed bridleway
diversion was a public highway (adopted unclassified
road). Confirmation had also been
provided to the Open Spaces Society that the airfield serving the
Cheshire Microlite Centre, and across
which the current and proposed diversions ran, would be closed
before the proposed diversions were confirmed.

The Committee noted that to date no objections
had been registered although Arclid and
Betchton Parish Councils had requested
an extension to the consultation deadline so they could consider
the proposals at their meetings on 15 March 2018.

The Committee unanimously

RESOLVED: That

1 the decision
to make the Order be delegated to the Head of Rural and Cultural
Economy or his nominated delegate who, in consultation with the
Chairman of the Public Rights of Way Committee, consider the
proposal together with any comments received from members of the
Arclid and Betchton Parish Councils following their meetings
on 15 March 2018.

2 if an Order is
made, Public Notice of the Order be given and in the event of there
being no objections within the period specified, the Order be
confirmed in the exercise of the powers conferred on the Council by
the said Acts on condition that the diversion of Arclid Public Footpath No.9 is complete.

The Committee considered a report which
detailed an application from Mr Kevin Coyne of Taylor Wimpey (North
West Ltd) on behalf of a consortium of house developers requesting
the Council to make an Order under Section 257 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 to divert parts of Public Footpath No.3
and No.4 in the parish of Worleston and divert part of Public
Footpath No.4 in the parish of Henhull.

In accordance with Section 257 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 the Borough Council, as Planning
Authority, can make an Order diverting a public footpath if it was
satisfied that it was necessary to do so to enable development to
be carried out in accordance with a planning permission which had
been applied for or granted.

Planning permission had been granted for a
residential development of up to 1,100 dwellings, 1.82ha of land
for business use, a potential primary school, community facilities
and local centre, allotments, recreational open space and
associated landscaping, highways, access roads, cycleways, footways
and drainage infrastructure – planning reference
13/2471N.

Parts of the existing alignment of Public
Footpath No.3 and Public Footpath No.4 Worleston and Public
Footpath No.4 Henhull would be affected by the construction of the
residential development. The consortium
of housing developers owned the land over which both the current
footpaths and proposed diversions routes ran and had all given
written permission for the diversions as proposed, with the
exception of a short section of Public Footpath No.3 Worleston for which landowner permission was still
be sought

Questions about the proposed diversion had
been raised by the Peak and Northern Footpath Society in relation
to the impact of the flood plain around the River Weaver, screening
of Public Footpath No.4 Worleston from
the new road and whether some of the routes were to be
landscaped.

In response to these questions it was reported
that the proposed routes affected by the flood plain would be
designed to allow run off of surface water. In relation to the section of Public Footpath No.4
Worleston, the new road would run at
the base of an embankment and would not be screened. Other than two sections of Public Footpath No.4
Henhull which would be landscaped with
trees and areas of wild flowers, the other proposed diversion
routes would run within the existing landscapes (mainly
grassland).

The Committee considered the application and
concluded it was necessary to divert part of Public Footpath No.3
and parts of Public Footpath No.4 Worleston and parts of Public
Footpath No.4 Henhull to allow for the residential development, as
detailed in planning reference 13/2471N. It was considered that the legal tests for the
making and confirming of a Diversion Order under section 257 of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 were satisfied.

The Committee unanimously

RESOLVED: That

1 Three Orders
be made under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
to divert the following footpath sections, as illustrated on Plan
No. TCPA/045:

The Committee considered a report which
detailed an application from Mr C Hadjivassilious of THDA Consulting Engineers
(agent) on behalf of Mr P Heslop of
Goodman Real Estates (UK) Ltd Nelson House, Blythe Valley Park,
Shirley, Solihull, West Midlands B90 8BG requesting the Council to
make an Order under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning
Act 1990 to divert part of Public Footpath No.11 in the parish of
Basford.

In accordance with Section 257 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 the Borough Council, as Planning
Authority, can make an Order diverting a public footpath if it was
satisfied that it was necessary to do so to enable development to
be carried out in accordance with a planning permission which had
been applied for or granted.

Planning permission had been granted for the
construction of a commercial development for general industry,
storage and distribution business on 18 July 2014 - planning
reference 14/0378N. A reserved matters
application relating to landscaping had been approved on 3 January
2018 – planning reference 17/3374N. Two further applications were being
progressed with an expectation that permission would be granted by
the end of April 2018 – planning references 18/0377N and
18/0475N.

The land over which the existing alignment of
the footpath section proposed for diversion would be obstructed by
the proposed commercial development and a diversion was required to
preserve the right of way for the public between Jack Mills Way and
Weston Road. The proposed new route
would take users through a landscaped area that would be developed
outside the western and southern perimeters of the
site. Although the route was longer it
was considered that it would be more scenic and easier to negotiate
than any alternative that weaved between the buildings of the new
commercial development. The new route
would be 2 metres wide, free of footpath furniture and would have a
grass surface.

Mr Ian Pritchard from Goodman spoke in support
of the application to divert Public Footpath No.11 Basford as it
would allow for the commercial development to be constructed, which
would secure locally based business and jobs already committed to
the development.

The Committee noted that the proposal was
being presented prior to the completion of the informal
consultation period, which would run for a further four weeks
following the meeting.

To date comments had been received from the
Ward Councillors, all of whom had registered support. Councillor Marren had
commented that the proposal were logical and sensible; Councillor
Hammond supported and trusted that the proposed route would be well
maintained. Councillor Edgar saw no
problems with the proposed route.

The Committee noted that the Open Spaces
Society had verbally raised concerns relating to the alignment of
the route running parallel to Jack Mills Way and had queried the
merits of an alternative alignment to the east of the site running
parallel to the railway. These points
would be further discussed with the developer during the remainder
of the consultation period. The
Committee expressed strong ...
view the full minutes text for item 39.